Genetically Modified Crops: The Myth

Genetic Modification (19.04.2005)

A study at the University of Kansas (allegedly) has shown that genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops rather than improving yields and concludes that GM is not the answer to world hunger. On the face of it, this should finish off the apparently unstoppable drive to force GM food onto a world that doesn't want it. GM soya produces about 10% LESS food than its conventional equivalent and this directly contradicts those that advocate the technology.

Many farmers had changed over to the GM crop, but had "noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal conditions" and "people were asking the question 'How come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?'", when a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety were grown in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre compared to 77 bushels from a non-GM crop. Though it is noticeable (by its apparent absence) that such claims are not obviously made public. The crop was engineered to resist Roundup (Monsanto).

Roundup is a 'glyphosphate' weedkiller and is implicated with the exclusive survival of Monsanto cotton, soybeans and corn. This constitutes a virtual monopoly. Glyphosphate itself is an example of a very simple organophosphate.

Alleged benefits of Monsanto products

Earlier research seems to be confirmed (University of Nebraska) where another Monsanto GM soya produced 6% LESS than its closest conventional relative and 11% LESS than the best non-GM soya available. This suggests two factors may apply:

• it takes time to modify a plant genetically
  
• better conventional plants are being developed

Monsanto said (19.04.08) that the soya had not been engineered to increase yields and so was not surprised by the decline, just the extent. Monsanto is currently developing one that would have increased yields and the issue of such a statement in any case makes for very convenient timing.

The physiology of plants is now reaching the limits of productivity and in an analogous consideration to human runners, the limit of human advance was probably set with the sub four-minute mile and the three-minute mile is highly improbable regardless of any advances in training. GM is not a panacea for world hunger according to the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Professor Bob Watson as chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), and director of the study, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, simply stated:

NO

The Earth Policy Institute predicted food price increases over a year ago and more recently in January 2008, a connection between ethanol and food price increases.

The United States Department of Agriculture admits that the time lag could result in decreased yields. Since the GM crops did worse than conventional plants, this suggests that the very process of genetically modifying the plant actually depresses productivity. GM cotton in the US declined even when GM technology took over. During the 6 years between 1996 and 2002, average yields went down.

The long-term genetic effects are unknown, but short-term it's all about money and profit. As of December 2007, Brazil's moves in biofuel technology appear successful even though deforestation to pave the way for sugar cane crops has a major deleterious effect on the composition of the (global) atmosphere. IF climate change is caused by CO2 and mankind's efforts increase it, then destruction of the forests is not likely to move in the right direction for a solution. Ridiculous 'carbon trading' is simply idiotic and typically mimics the Winners And Losers (aka redistribution) principle.

Paradoxically, the Luddite view would be to suspend any moves towards change and considered in a derogatory way. Even though 'putting the brakes on' would be prudent, but money talks loudest and has the most number of listeners. The lone voice in the wilderness is ignored as the wilderness grows with ever mounting aggressiveness. And without any GMOs.

• If oil use is curtailed, how is the industry going to counter moves to reduce output? After all, it is a huge revenue earner for the oil companies and governments and such an attack on profits will not be taken lightly. The masking attempts are to misdirect into believing real effort is being expended on minimising CO2 creation, yet with the concomitant belief that the business of 'oil' will just accept this attack. Unlikely. Money ALWAYS comes first. It's the 'richest man in the graveyard' scenario.
  

The common sense long-term view must involve education and changes to adapt to global life-styles that do not use oil-based products. Or nuclear. Moves towards a dark age are clearly seen on the horizon and a somewhat similar scenario that allegedly caused the extinction of the dinosaurs is coming towards us. A very sudden forced situation. So it must inevitably be with mankind. It's not just that some resources are not sustainable, but that life itself is not sustainable. The growing global population and rapidly dwindling resources create a totally unsustainable situation. Any progress is obviously in the opposite direction: a reducing global population AND a growing renewable resource.

We either learn to adapt or disappear from the face of the Earth

There is no other option available. Constantly, any possible answer to any 'challenge' is always considered in terms of money. Never survival. Ask anyone who has been forced to face death and inquire about priorities. What might a wealthy individual give to 'buy' some air in a confined room? Would they kill any other occupant so that they could use the air? Questions that can be ducked as they are not applicable, but they do apply. Now. Like wishing to learn to swim when out at sea in a capsized vessel. Or heading towards a (very) solid object at speed. The change of direction should be made before it's too late. It cannot be made afterwards.